Thursday, February 13, 2014

Liberal Left Article V. Convention Threat Another Fear Tactic

By Douglas V. Gibbs

We all act like a bunch of trained monkeys, and I am absolutely sick of it. Sheeple, some may call it. The hard left political elite plays all of us like a well-tuned fiddle. They have taught democrat voters, republican voters, conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party folk, and the so-called moderates to salivate every time they ring their bell. They attack what they fear the most, use their attack-campaign to spread propaganda so that we fear what they fear, thus neutralizing the threat, and keeping all of us under control. And I am sick and tired of it.

Let's set up a few qualifiers, first, before I get into the absolutely flawed post my very good friend, and very conservative friend, JASmius put up on this website earlier this week (find the link to it at the end of this post). I want to make sure all of you fully understand what is happening, and what The Left is doing. It is time to quit reacting when they tell us to, and it is time for us to quit jumping through hoops because the liberal left jerks that want to destroy us said to.

I wrote in the first paragraph that they attack what they fear most. The liberal left tells us at every turn what they fear, because that is where they spend their most effort in destroying. And we fall for it, every time. We act exactly as they want, and then we wonder why we can't seem to pull it together. We have a House of Representatives watching President Obama slice and dice his way through the Constitution, enacting through his "executive power" various actions and regulations that violate the Constitution at every turn, and the Republicans in Congress are too afraid to act. They have been beaten witless so many times, they are afraid to even raise an eyebrow. They think if they dared come up against "The One," they'd be called racists, extremists, and mean - and they just can't have that. So, they sit in silence, let the democrats trample all over the Constitution, enact policies foreign to the founding of this nation, and then the Republicans tell us they are trying to be careful and only pick the fights they can win.

You can't win anything if you don't fight the fight!

Conservatism, and the principles of the United States Constitution, scare the statist leftists to death. They know that those are the things that can bring them down. Concepts like limited government, Divine Providence, and believing that our rights are God-given is completely contrary to their plans, so they must silence, and ultimately destroy, anything that is associated with conservatism, the Constitution, or God.

They attack what they fear.

In 2008 John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I had indicated a year earlier that she was the logical choice for whoever won the GOP bid for President because she had executive experience, was conservative, and among the most popular governors in the country. The Democrats unleashed both barrels on her, and pretty much left McCain alone - because it was Sarah Palin they feared. Their campaign of personal destruction against Governor Palin was merciless, relentless, and disgusting. The liberal left, armed with their minions in the media, created a caricature of Sarah Palin that was nothing like who she really is. She was branded as being stupid, radical, and unhinged. Now, most people on the political right also thinks Sarah Palin is damaged goods. The hardcore conservatives saw through the crap, recognized that nearly everything being said about Palin was false, and to this day support her. . . but enough people began to fear Palin holding any position of government as a result of the leftist, well-oiled propaganda machine, and so the democrats achieved what they set out to achieve, and Palin has become a minor footnote in the history of politics.

They have done the exact same thing to various Republicans and conservatives in history. Many political careers have ended because of accusations that were never proven. In one case, all it took was the misspelling of the word potato on a card, and Dan Quayle not realizing it until the error left his lips. From George Bush to Ted Cruz, everyone the Left decides is dangerous to their power or aims is destroyed with equal ferocity. Like the scorpion, they sting because that is just what they do.

For years I have proclaimed that one of the primary tools on our tool belt of constitutional weapons to turn this thing around is the Article V. Convention. The list of tools I refer to, if you are curious, is: A Peaceful Revolution (The TEA Party in 2010-2012 was one of these), Nullification (The States are the final arbiters of the Constitution so if a federal law is unconstitutional, they need to work together in refusing to implement these illegal laws, which Jefferson said are "null and void"), Secession (the threat of secession is a very valuable tool against collectivists, who, at all cost want to keep what they believe to be a nationalist entity, intact), Article V. Convention (the primary topic of this piece), and a bloody revolution (a last resort, but one that even the peace loving patriots of the eighteenth century found it impossible to avoid).

An Article V. Convention, as provided for in Article V. of the United States Constitution, is a second option when proposing amendments. In the article, we are given two ways to change the Constitution. The first, and only used method since the Bill of Rights, is for Congress to propose an amendment. Once Congress approves a proposed amendment with a two thirds vote of both Houses, the proposed amendment then goes to the States for ratification, where it requires three-fourths approval by the States, via legislative vote, or by State convention.

The second way to propose amendments, according to Article V., is by the application for convention by the States. If two thirds of the States apply for convention, it is the constitutional requirement for the federal government to "call" the convention (set the place, date, and time), which is the ONLY involvement the federal government, or politicians in general, have with an Article V. Convention. Then, delegates selected by a manner determined by each State, would gather to debate and work together over the proposal of amendments. Once amendment proposals have been agreed upon, as with the first option, the proposals are sent to the States for ratification, which would still require three-fourths approval.

Opponents, like the John Birch Society, argue that the option for convention is a dangerous one, and could lead to a run-away convention, where the liberal left, or a whole gaggle of politicians, would figure out a way to hijack it, and then re-write the Constitution. The original constitutional convention in 1787, these people will argue, was exactly that. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval for any changes, and the convention resumed anyway, and changed the U.S. Government's model, with only twelve of the thirteen States in attendance, and requiring only three-quarters ratification approval.

To make changes, risk is always involved. If we are too afraid to go after the opposition, they have already won.

The fail-safe to an Article V. Convention is supposed to be that it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify any proposed amendment. Federalist 85 even lays out all of the advantages to the Article V. Convention, suggesting that if the government became tyrannical, convention is our greatest tool for stopping the madness, and getting things back on a constitutional footing. It is a way for the States, and We The People, to change the Constitution without the involvement of the tyrants.

Barack Obama, and his gang of democrats, have determined that Congress is irrelevant. They are using unconstitutional regulations and unconstitutional executive orders to usurp the Constitution. As far as Obama, and his imps, are concerned, any congressional role is optional. They feel the same way about the States, and the people, too.

As we have seen countless times, through the courts, the liberal left democrats are swatting away any attempt through the States to defend State Sovereignty, or to protect limiting principles. The courts have rejected State laws, and changes to State Constitutions, setting up the federal government as the ultimate power, ruling over the States and the People with complete immunity to any attempt to correct the situation.

An Article V. Convention is a way to go around the federal government, and for the States and People to correct the problem doing an end-around, and the liberal left knows it. That is why they fear it.

Convention by the States was going to be, originally, the only way to amend the constitution. Proposing amendments by congressional action was an option added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. If convention was such a dangerous thing, why was it originally going to be the only way to change the Constitution?

Again, the Left fears an Article V. Convention because it allows the States and People to do things, including take away the government's power, without the power jockeys of the federal government, or any corrupt politicians of the States, involvement. The Left bypasses the Constitution. That is what they do. They have no interest in a convention. They just don't want us having one.

All of this rant about the Article V. Convention is in response to a post JASmius put on Political Pistachio about a professor, Professor Mary Margaret Penrose of Texas A&M University, who advocates a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution via an Article V Convention. She believes the 2nd Amendment must be abolished, and an Article V. Convention is the way to do it. This mere statement has brought all of the fears of the people claiming we must run away from what they call a "Con-Con" into reality. She is playing us like that well-tuned fiddle, and like a bunch of well-trained monkeys, we are reacting exactly as she had hoped - by running away from any consideration of an Article V. Convention.

As long as it was under the radar, even though the leftists fear an Article V. Convention, they never brought any attention to it because it was not a major threat. But, like when Sarah Palin was suddenly in the spotlight, once Mark Levin changed his tune on convention, and proclaimed in his latest book that the Article V. Convention was indeed a valuable tool on the tool belt of conservatives, thus, making the concept a mainstream issue, the liberal left knew they needed to go into action. They didn't call each other. They didn't gather in some meeting with black briefcases, with black helicopters flying overhead. They don't have to. The collectivist mind of the liberal left knows exactly what to do, which is what makes them so predictable, and so dangerous. But, once the Article V. Convention genie was let out of the bottle, they realized they needed to do something to stop it before it became a movement, and the first shot has been fired.

The threat by Professor Penrose was not made because she, or any other hard-left liberal democrat, cares anything about having a convention. They don't need a convention. They do fine usurping the Constitution through ignoring it, or shredding it through executive actions, or the courts. Like everything else, all they have to eventually do is deem it irrelevant, and no longer a factor. They don't want to have an Article V. Convention. The purpose of Penrose's comments was not to encourage the liberal left to pursue having an Article V. Convention, but to take the possibility of having a convention away from We The People.

She said exactly what people like the John Birch Society warns to create fear and panic and to disarm any movement towards convention. Once again, this threat was not made because they are considering convention, but to take convention away from us by creating fear. That is how they work. If you oppose them you are put into a position of fear, be it by being called a -phobe, or a radical, or by being convinced that you really don't want what you may want.

This is why the Republicans have become so impotent in this fight. The members of the GOP fall for these tactics every time. We need to ignore the leftist scare tactics and hit them hard and hit them often. This is what Ted Cruz understands, and every establishment Republican can't seem to understand.

In his post, JASmius said that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. That may have some truth to it, but if the sword is your primary weapon, and you refuse to use it, you don't have a chance in the fight, and you become a slave with a whimper, rather than by putting up a fight. The shield is the Constitution. Our dagger is nullification. A peaceful revolution is our armor. An Article V. Convention is our sword. We have to pull the sword, whether we are going to die by it, or not. To refuse to use the tools given to us by the Founding Fathers would be irresponsible, would prove we are just a bunch of trained monkeys like the liberal left Democrats want us to be, and would then put us in a position where we would have to use secession, and bloody revolution, a nuclear detonation I believe we should avoid, if it is possible to turn this around with our mighty sword called an "Article V. Convention."

Yes, an Article V convention could be a valuable tool. But you are neglecting a few key points. 1)Many of the left do indeed want to have such a thing and have proposed numerous amendments such as repealing the second amendment and so forth. That includes former Chief Justice Stevens. 2)The Constitution does not specify how the delegates are chosen. Do you imagine for one second that those delegates will be grassroots conservatives? Or will they be those who claim to be "Constitutionalists" supported by corrupt media money. Will they be chosen by our equally corrupt state legislators? If the people get to vote, what type of person will have the most financial support to run? 3)There are two ways to ratify any changes to the Constitution--as you correctly noted. They are by Legislatures of by State conventions. But have you noticed WHO gets to choose the method? It's Congress! Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. 4)Nothing in Article V--not a single word is different in meaning from what it was when it was written. And it does not restrict adding or repealing amendments in any way. What is to stop them from repealing the bill of right? Ah, the 3/4 vote of the States, you say. But what is to prevent the delegates at the con-con--who write such trash--from also being the delegates at a convention? After all it happened before. The delegates to the first Constitutional Convention came home to SC and were also the State delegates. So if we have corruption at the concon, we just transfer it to the states. And we the people have no say in the matter. Remember, CONGRESS choose the mode of ratification. Finally, very few words in the Constitution at large mean anything different today from what they meant when it was written, although some have been twisted to imply something different. Those who want a concon are too lazy to study the Constitution, or are deliberately ignoring it. The general public have not been appropriately educated on the Constitution in several generations; so of course they can be easily duped into thinking all sorts of things are in the Constitution when they aren't , or aren't there when they are. The Constitution already requires a balanced budget, for example. The Constitution requires the gov. to COIN money, not print fiat debt on paper, and not delegate that responsibility to a corrupt central bank. Before you call for a Convention to "fix" the Constitution, you need to begin by throwing out all of those who don't abide by it. That's nearly all of them in Washington, and they know darn well that the people are so addicted to gov handouts that they will never vote out the people who are doling out tax payer money to those who won't work. So add a few amendments--and you really think they will abide by them any more than they do by the current ones? If so, you're dreaming. They will only abide by the ones they choose--such as making health insurance a constitutional mandate--as proposed by Hawaii. Or haven't you been watching all those who have great ideas about how to fix the Constitution.

And, IntrepidGrammarian, what comments would that be? I have no problem with disagreement, because they are easily proven wrong. I have a problem with trouble-makers, and the casual use of profanity and falsities, so I mediate to eliminate them. . . and the massive amount of spam this site receives. Go ahead, disagree, with intelligence, and then I will shoot you down. Note, just because something is not immediately approved or replied to it does not mean it has been deleted or ignored. I am a very busy man, and my priorities are often elsewhere. Patience is a virtue.

...

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html) Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to politicalpistachio@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.